Surprise! Nuclear decay rates seem to be dependent on Earth's orbitalposition

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:f%nuk.321299$yE1.217373@attbi_s21...
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""
http://science.slashdot.org/article..../08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distance
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

So are these decay rates in agreement this the gravitational time
dilation predicted by general relativity?

Sammy, nuclear decays are exponential,
and exponenial growths and decays
are related to populations and environments.

To quote Planck,
"The logarithmic connection between entropy and probability
was first stated by L. Boltzmann in his kinetic theory of gases"

S = k log(W)

Her's my view on this matter.

1. Populations of bosons, fermions, and combinations thereof, exist.

2. Contiguous populations form an environment.

3. In a nurturing environment populations increase exponentially,
and in a non-nurturing environment populations decrease exponentially.

The exponential function which indicates
that quantum changes in the size of a population
are functions of the environment and the size of the population,
models this quite well:

population(generation n+1) = population(generation n) * e^ (k*time)

e = the base of natural logarithms.
k = a constant that indicates how a particular sector of space (Environment)
impacts that population, at that point in time.

4. Although the exponential equation accurately models numerous kinds
of population behavior from the atomic level to plants and animals,
to the heavens, it leaves two basic questions unresolved.

a. How to get a population jump started?
( ie. how does a population come into being?)

b. As populations involve integer (Quantum) numbers of
population members, what is the significance of a fractional
or real number population member?
( You can't have half a person or half an electron.)

5. Euler Formula:
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

may provide part of the answer.

Euler Formula can be stated for a perfect sphere as:
( One where the circumference divided by the diameter equals pi):
e^(i*( circumference(P) / diameter(P))) + 1 = 0

a. This indicates that when an orthogonal component
of a quantum population member,
is rotated 90 degrees in a perfect circle, sphere,
or any higher order shape that obeys this equation,
that you end up with two population members (2) or NONE (zero).

This indicates that Nature strives to create and maintain perfect
circles, spheres, and other higher order shapes where
circumference(P) / diameter(P) = pi

or else nature multiplies or divides the population member.

b. The Euler equation would not be operative,
for a non-perfect shape,
or in the situation where a perfect shape,
encounters a discontinuity, that destroys the
pi relationship between the circumference and the diameter.

Contrast a perfectly balanced motor
with one with an out of balance condition,
or a smooth road, with one that has a bump in it, etc.

Imagine what would happen to a perfect bubble,
in a completely neutral environment,
if it encountered a discontinuity.

In other words,
Nature acts to restore balance
when out of balance conditions exist,
or to break up or combine population members
that are party to out of balance conditions.

6. The bottom line is this:
Nothing happens to a perfect sphere
in a perfectly neutral environment.

On the other hand, if the sphere is not perfect,
or if it exists in a non-neutral environment,
or if it encounters a discontinuity,
something happens.

In an infinite nurturing or non-nurturing environment
nothing would happen to perfect sphere-like quanta,
but if the perfect sphere encountered a discontinuity
it would either combine or divide.

The key to exponential growth and decays
are populations and environments,
and General Relativity introduces
a Tower Of Babel into the picture.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ingleberry.htm

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message
. 33.102...
Jan Panteltje wrote in news:g9ccm4$m26$1
@aioe.org:

On a sunny day (Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:51:25 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance

Very interesting.
I could envisision neutrinos knocking stuff lose...

http://science.slashdot.org/article..../08/29/1227239
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

It's a mistake. ?

I looked at the paper 0808.3283.

The effect, whatever causes it, certainly looks real. Of that, there
seems to be no doubt. However, the variation range is of the order of +/-
0.001 while any direct effect due to strange emanations from the sun
should vary as 1/R^2(sun) (distance squared) which is much greater
(+/-0.03). The two sites were BNL (New York) and a site in Germany.

There seems to be a phase shift between solar flux variation and the
change in the counting rates, in that the minimum counting rate is reached
after perihelion, not at perihelion, and similarly for aphelion the
maximum counting rate is later. The only thing I can suggest is that some
subtle

Apologies, I think I mixed up the perihelion and aphelion on the curve.
Minimum counting rate is reached just after aphelion (where 1/R^2 is
minimum), etc. Otherwise I still think there is an environmental effect.

seasonal variation, such as temperature, is somehow affecting the results,
as seasonal temperatures lag behind insolation by about two months or so
(e.g., New York is hottest in August, not on June 21st). Note that the
perihelion is around Jan 4th and aphelion around July 4th, so the
association of seasonal dates (as opposed to seasons) with distance to the
Sun is obvious.

The authors claim to have investigated possible environmental causes, but
rather than guess at some wild-assed new physics, I'd put my money on some
subtle environmental effect not yet accounted for. If I were a referee,
what I'd ask for is a plot of mean daily temperature vs the fluctuations,
and a check to see if there is still a phase shift.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)


--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Hi Yousuf,
I've posted on neutrino flux for a few years,
below you will find a recent one...

On Aug 30, 1:51 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283


Well, as a brat I'm reading along studying mean
lifetimes of meson and hyperons seeing 10^-10 secs,
and my brain screeches to a halt at the (n) life of
15 minutes, which is like a relative eternity!

Next, how can a tiny thing like a (n) contain some
sort of clock that ticks off to explode in ~15 minutes??
If anyone wishes to explain how that sort of timer
can be contained within the (n)'s structure I'd be
happy to read about it.

So Tucker goes over to causality theory using
neutrino flux to explain the (n) decay rate, it's
obviously a fringe notion due to lack of data.
Let's begin with a quiki wifi, for ref,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
and see the (n) decay as,

n = p+e+v'

and do a causal reversal to

n+v = p+e

with the neutrino (v) being of the appropriate
energy to intiate the (n) decay, thereby laying
radioactive decay rates on the (v) flux.

That was all conjecture until Super Nova 1987a.

Reports came in of a large amount of (v) flux from
terrestrial detectors and a star nearby SN1987a
brightend.
I'm sorry I cannot find an immediate ref to that
nearby star, the phenomena was fleeting,
however, if the observation was true, then the
(v) flux accelerated the *rate of fusion* within the
nearby star, and so to the rate of radioactivity,
that resulted from the (v) pulse from SN1987a.

That provided the 1st evidence that decay rates
are proportional to neutrino flux, hence providing
a causal basis for neutron decay life times.

Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Aug 30, 4:51*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

The paper by Jenkins, et al., is interesting.

The charts show a significant annual variation in the decay rates.
They also show a significant phase difference between the cycle in
decay rates and the anomalistic year. Unfortunately the anomalistic
year, the sidereal year, and the tropical year are close enough in
duration that the difference between them will not be seen in a
display with this resolution and duration.

The cycle of the anomalistic year appears to lead the decay rate cycle
by about 1-2 months - the uncertainty in the decay rate data prohibits
a more precise guess.

There are also many phenomena which vary with the same periodicity.
For example, annual cycles in electrical usage on Long Island will
contribute to variabilities in transient background magnetic fields.
A magnetic field is one of the few things we have which is capable of
'reaching through' the electronic shells of an atom and affecting the
nucleus directly.

Considering the size of the system being studied (0.1 nm per atom) I
would expect a much shorter hysteresis time than a month or two
between putative cause and effect.

I would like to see spreadsheets of the raw data for the purpose of
examining the amplitude, period, and phase of the variability with
least-square numerical techniques.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On Aug 30, 1:51*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

ANYWHERE GRAVITY CHANGES MEANS TIME CHANGES.

A decay rate on the mountaintop is slower than the coastline because
relativity is a true effect.

It is interesting it was so visible.

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in
:

"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message
. 33.102...
Jan Panteltje wrote in news:g9ccm4$m26$1
@aioe.org:

On a sunny day (Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:51:25 -0400) it happened Yousuf
Khan wrote in :

Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance

Very interesting.
I could envisision neutrinos knocking stuff lose...

http://science.slashdot.org/article..../08/29/1227239
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

It's a mistake. ?

I looked at the paper 0808.3283.

The effect, whatever causes it, certainly looks real.

Don't kid yourself. This sort of thing has happened before, and it
inevitably turns out to be an irreproducible result. Just because it
looks like a legitimate science paper, doesn't mean that it is, and
there are plenty of opportunities for serious mistakes in places that
you can't check, just by reading the paper.

Wait for a corroborating publication by an independent group. ?

On Aug 31, 6:53 am, Bluuuue Rajah Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote :



"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message
.33.102...
Jan Panteltje wrote in news:g9ccm4$m26$1
@aioe.org:

On a sunny day (Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:51:25 -0400) it happened Yousuf
Khan wrote in :

Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance

Very interesting.
I could envisision neutrinos knocking stuff lose...

http://science.slashdot.org/article..../08/29/1227239
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

It's a mistake. ?

I looked at the paper 0808.3283.

The effect, whatever causes it, certainly looks real.

Don't kid yourself. This sort of thing has happened before, and it
inevitably turns out to be an irreproducible result. Just because it
looks like a legitimate science paper, doesn't mean that it is, and
there are plenty of opportunities for serious mistakes in places that
you can't check, just by reading the paper.

Well there are 6 guys signing off on that paper, so it's
been tripled checked twice.

Wait for a corroborating publication by an independent group. ?

It's extremely rare for 6 guys to party to error.
I hardly think 6 guys would **** their reputations
over a statistical analysis.

I think their stats are supported by theory and other
independent observations, that I've studied since the
1980's. That makes 7.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Dear Douglas Eagleson:

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message
...
....
ANYWHERE GRAVITY CHANGES MEANS
TIME CHANGES.

A decay rate on the mountaintop is slower than
the coastline because relativity is a true effect.

It is interesting it was so visible.

Especially since it is two different clocks *in the same place*.
If this is not an artifact of some sort, there should not have
been a detectable difference between these processes (time
passage on Earth clock, and time passage for a population of
nuclear material).

David A. Smith

On Aug 31, 3:00 am, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
Right, one needs to be worried about subtle biases. Both of the
experiments were done in the northern hemisphere. An interesting test
would be to use a southern hemisphere lab where any seasonal biases
would be reversed. I didn't read the paper, but surely the authors
considered such biases though...

I can see your point, however, in the northern hemisphere during the
winter, we're closer to the Sun. So even though we're closer to the
Sun, our temperatures are lower.

Yousuf Khan

Dear YKhan:

"YKhan" wrote in message
...
On Aug 31, 3:00 am, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
Right, one needs to be worried about subtle biases.
Both of the experiments were done in the northern
hemisphere. An interesting test would be to use a
southern hemisphere lab where any seasonal biases
would be reversed. I didn't read the paper, but
surely the authors considered such biases though...

I can see your point, however, in the northern
hemisphere during the winter, we're closer to the Sun.
So even though we're closer to the Sun, our
temperatures are lower.

So it *needs* to be reversed, and see if it repeats. *That* is
science.

GM tube detectors have some temperature sensitivity, and the
devices used to do these estimations of half-life may have also.
Additionally, neutrinos do decay, and their flux is higher when
the Sun is closer.

Now that they know what to look for, it could be duplicated in
part in 6-12 months.

Patience...

David A. Smith